<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>amy</b></i>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>SeanDavis</b></i>
Now ask yourself as just a financial incentive, wouldn't you want your drug to treat the symptoms properly, meaning they will always need to take your drug...Or would you seriously want to "cure" them of their disease?
The profit is in the symtoms of the disease, not the cure of the disease. Remember that guys.</end quote></div>
You assume that cure the diease will be one shot deal. You inhale some med and then CF is gone.
The nature of our disease is such that if we find a "cure" to fix the defect in our genes, we'll most likely have to administer this medication for the rest of our lives.
So the profit could be in the cure of the disease - because duration of therapy could be lifelong. Just as treating symptoms of a disease could be lifelong.
So your statement that the profit is in the symptoms of the disease and not the cure - is flawed.</end quote></div>
Yeah but the principle is still the same. If they had the option of giving us a one therapy shot deal to cure us for say $20,000 bucks, or have us do an "extended treatment" to maintain our DNA to mimic being "cured" for a very long period of time, say maybe lifelong for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, they will take that option every time of course.
I would say for sake of argument, that most people would say something you have to do for the rest of your life isn't considered a "cure", regardless what the therapy fixes. A "cure" would mostly mean a one time thing, or possibly a couple times thing. So splitting hairs on that meaning is a tad silly. I wouldn't call sex a "cure" for the problem of my testicles producing spermazoa either, because it's an everyday thing <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">